jfr13 - home | aia professional
Post on 29-Nov-2021
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
JFR13
AIA
j u s t i c e fac i l i t i e s r e v i e w
JFR13j u s t i c e fac i l i t i e s r e v i e w
The American Institute of ArchitectsAcademy of Architecture for Justice
Washington, D.C.
Copyright 2013 The American Institute of ArchitectsAll rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America
The project information in this book has been provided by the architecture firms represented in the book. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has no reason to believe the information is not accurate, but the AIA does not warrant, and assumes no liability for, the accuracy or completeness of the information. It is the responsibility of users to verify the information with the appropriate architecture firm or other source.
The American Institute of Architects1735 New York Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20006
2013 Academy of Architecture for Justice Advisory GroupLinda Bernauer, AIACatherine Chan, AIA, chairLorenzo M. Lopez, AIAElizabeth Minnis, AIA, past chairAmy Ann Phillips, AIA
AIA StaffTerri Stewart, CAE, managing director, Design and Practice OperationsDouglas Paul, managing director, Practice and Knowledge ResourcesKathleen Simpson, director, Knowledge CommunitiesElizabeth Stepahin, manager, Honors and AwardsVirginia Ebbert, manager, Architect’s Knowledge Resource
Design: designfarm Editor: Janet Rumbarger
Cover photos, top to bottom: Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, Richard E. Arnason Justice Center, Waterloo Region Courthouse
ContentSiii
ContentS
Jury Members ....................................................................................... iv
Jury Comments .................................................................................... vii
Citations
Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, Nunavut Territory, Canada [correctional] ....................................................................................... 2
Richard E. Arnason Justice Center, Pittsburg, California [court] ........................ 6
San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility, Santee, California [detention] ......................................................................... 10
Waterloo Region Courthouse, Kitchener, Ontario [court] .................................. 14
Correctional and Detention Facilities
New Model Prison for Mexico’s Federal Penitentiary System, Mexico City, Mexico ....................................................................................... 20
Wake County Detention Center, Phase 2 Expansion, Wake County, North Carolina .......................................................................... 22
Court Facilities
Chatham County Trial Courthouse, Savannah, Georgia .................................... 26
Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse, Columbus, Ohio ........................ 28
George C. Young U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, Orlando, Florida ............................................................................................. 30
John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse, Yuma, Arizona ................................................ 32
Lake County Judicial Center Expansion, Tavares, Florida ................................ 34
Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse, Rockford, Illinois .............................. 36
Superior Court of California, County of Kings, Hanford Courthouse, Hanford, California ......................................................................................... 38
Yuba City Courthouse, Yuba City, California ................................................... 40
U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles, California (Design Competition) ..................... 42
Law Enforcement Facilities
Johnson County Sheriff’s Criminalistics Laboratory, Olathe, Kansas ................ 46
Toronto Police Service 14 Division, Toronto, Ontario ...................................... 48
Index of Architects ............................................................................. 52
Jury ChAIr
Jay Farbstein, PhD, FAIAJay Farbstein & Associates, Inc. Pacific Palisades, CA
Mr. Farbstein is president of his
firm and has more than 30 years of
professional experience in justice
facility planning, programming, and
post-occupancy evaluation, with an
emphasis on courts and corrections.
He has led projects for clients including the National Institute
of Corrections and many federal, state, and local jurisdictions
nationwide. He was lead author of Correctional Facility Planning
and Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986) and has been invited
to lecture about his work in Japan, Canada, Britain, France, and
Germany.
Mr. Farbstein cochairs the AIA Academy of Architecture for Justice’s
research program. For the AAJ, he led a study of the application
of neuroscience to the evaluation of correctional environments and
recently served on a joint expert panel with Infocomm International
to develop standards for audiovisual infrastructure in the courts.
He also served as chair of the Environmental Design Research
Association and received its lifetime career achievement award in
2008. He earned an MArch from Harvard University and a PhD from
the University of London in environmental studies.
JuRy membeRS
JFR1
3
iv
Duane B. Delaney D.C. Superior CourtWashington, DC
Duane Delaney is the clerk of the
court for the District of Columbia
Superior Court. He has been
employed by the D.C. Superior
Court for over 30 years and has
served as the appointed clerk of
the court for 17 years. As clerk of
the court he is responsible for all
operations in the Superior Court, a general jurisdiction urban
court with more than 800 employees and 125 judges. Before
his appointment as clerk of the court, Mr. Delaney served the
court in numerous capacities, including deputy clerk of the
court, director of the Civil Division, acting director of the Social
Services Division (Probation Department), special assistant to
the clerk of the court, probation officer, and pretrial services
officer.
Mr. Delaney received his JD degree from Georgetown University
Law Center in 1989 and an MS degree in judicial administration
from American University in 1979. He graduated magna cum
laude in 1977 with a BA degree from Howard University, where
he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He is a member of the
D.C. Bar and the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court. He currently
serves on the board of directors of the National Association
for Court Management (NACM) and is a board member of
the Justice Management Institute. He previously served as
NACM’s representative on the National Center for State Courts
Research Advisory Committee and has chaired NACM’s Award
of Merit Subcommittee since 2007.
Thomas G. Donaghy, AIA, LEED® APKGDArlington, VA
Thomas Donaghy is the architec-
ture director for KGD Architecture.
His diverse experience ranges
from master planning large mixed-
use urban projects to designing
commercial, hospitality, education,
and justice facilities. All of his
pro jects emphasize their contextual
envi ron ment and the connections between human experience and
sustainable practices. His design of the Maryland District Court of
Rockville received a 2012 citation from the Academy of Architecture
for Justice.
Mr. Donaghy received his BArch from the University of Arizona. He
is a member of the Education Committee of the Virginia chapter of
NAIOP, a commercial real estate development association, and he
presented his work at the AIA/AAJ national conference in 2011.
Thomas N. Faust D.C. Department of CorrectionsWashington, DC
Thomas Faust is a public safety
professional with more than 34
years of experience in the field of
criminal justice. He currently serves
as director of the D.C. Department of
Corrections, one of the largest local
detention systems in the nation.
From 1977 to 1990, Mr. Faust held several positions with the
Arlington County (Virginia) Sheriff’s Office, including deputy sheriff,
director of administration, and chief deputy. In 1990 he was elected
to his first four-year term as sheriff of Arlington County, a position he
held for three consecutive terms. He later served as chief operating
officer of the National Sheriffs’ Association and, from 2007 to 2009,
was vice president of Aramark Correctional Services, where he
developed corporate marketing, outreach, and quality assurance
strategies.
JuRy membeRSv
Mr. Faust received a BS degree from Virginia Tech and an MPA
from George Mason University (GMU). He has served on the GMU
Administration of Justice Advisory Board, the Northern Virginia
Community College Criminal Justice Curriculum Advisory Board,
and the National Institute of Corrections Large Jail Network. He is
also a past president of the American Jail Association.
Maynard Feist, AIALionakisSacramento, CA
Maynard Feist is the lead principal of
Lionakis’s criminal justice team. He
joined the firm in 1988 when its only
office was in Sacramento; the firm
now has offices throughout California
and Hawaii.
He has led the design, planning,
and construction of adult and juvenile detention facilities in 19
California counties, and he helped the first counties in the state go
through the SB81 funding process. When California implemented
its requirements to create more positive and rehabilitative
environments, Mr. Feist was at the forefront of this transformation in
correctional facility planning and design.
With more than 31 years of experience, he is a recognized leader
in the correctional market and is well versed in the latest legislation
that affects correctional clients. Mr. Feist has been involved with
the State Fire Marshal’s I-3 Occupancy Codes Task Force and
participated in the refinement of the Title 24 Minimum Standards
for Juvenile Facilities with the Board of Community Corrections
for reporting recommendations that will be included in the 2013
California Building Code.
Mr. Feist, originally from North Dakota, takes a pragmatic and
sensible approach to problem solving. His expertise and practical
knowledge of construction compliment his deep understanding of
correctional facility architecture.
JFR1
3
vi
JuRy membeRS Continued
James Lewis McClaren, AIA McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie, Inc. Phoenix, AZ
Mr. McClaren is a senior principal
and cofounder of his firm. His legacy
includes completed architecture
in service to law enforcement and
the forensic sciences in 40 states
and two Canadian provinces.
Currently he is working on the new
Salt Lake City Police/Fire/EOC/911
headquarters, which features seismic dampening technology
and is the first North American police headquarters to be a net-
zero building and achieve LEED® Platinum status. He recently
completed the police master plan for the Los Angeles World
Airports and is collaborating on the modernization efforts of the
LAPD’s historic academy in Elysian Park.
Recruited 28 years ago by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, Mr. McClaren has presented the IACP program,
“Planning, Design, and Construction of Police Facilities,” to
more than 2,700 police executives and design professionals,
representing 1,365 police agencies worldwide.
JuRy CommentSvii
The jury members agreed that we were seeking projects that
are outstanding on multiple levels—programmatic, operational,
environmental, and aesthetic, as well as from the perspective
of cost and construction. We were especially impressed with
innovative solutions to challenging problems related to site, context,
program, or construction. And we were very pleased to have found
four such projects we could celebrate by awarding citations, as
well as a substantial number of other projects that offered valuable
contributions and warranted publication.
Two correctional projects that received citations were outstandingly
innovative in their response to rehabilitative and reintegrative
programming. The two projects—one an Inuit village in the Arctic
and the other a women’s correctional facility in California—
represented vastly different cultural contexts. In both cases, the
client drove the programmatic innovations, and the design teams
rose to the occasion, proposing environments that clearly supported
and expressed the programmatic and operational goals.
The court projects that received citations also rose to the level of
excellence. The response to context and locale in the Waterloo
courthouse permeated the layout, the shape of the public spaces,
and the materiality. In the Arnason Justice Center project, we found
excellence at every level, from planning, detailing, and material
selections to overall quality and attractiveness. We were impressed
with the efforts to introduce natural light into the courtrooms. And
more than one juror commented that “this looks like a facility that
everyone would enjoy working in.”
We inferred that the mix of projects submitted most likely reflected
economic conditions; places and facility types that were (at least
in the last couple of years) relatively well funded were better
represented. Thus, we saw far more courts than other types
of projects and more from California, Texas, the U.S. federal
government, and Canada. Submissions included some adult
correctional facilities and law enforcement facilities, but, for some
reason, not a single juvenile detention or correctional facility was
submitted.
Historically accurate courthouse projects—restorations and, even
more important, new construction—needed to demonstrate to the
jury that they brought some level of innovation and excellence
to the court planning and environmental aspects of the project,
but none that were submitted met this criterion. Although some
projects claimed to reinterpret traditional court design elements in a
contemporary vocabulary, only a few succeeded—and we insisted
that the design reflect the lofty ideals sometimes expressed in the
accompanying rhetoric.
The jury was pleased to note that high levels of performance in
energy efficiency and environmental quality have become the norm
for submissions. LEED® Silver seems to be the entry level for these
public sector projects.
One area of general disappointment was in the Thought Leadership
category. Few projects that were properly studies bothered to apply
in this category, and the ones that did, while competent, did not rise
to the level of innovation or excellence. Quite a number of design
projects were simultaneously identified as thought leaders, but only
a few demonstrated convincingly that they were.
Finally, for projects that represent innovative contributions to
program and design, the jury strongly recommends that post-
occupancy evaluations be conducted to validate the aspects that
work—and those that may not work as well—so that firms working
in this field can move toward a more evidence-based design.
jay farbstein, PhD, faia
2013 Justice Facilities Review Jury Chair
JuRy CommentS the View FRom the ChaiR
CitationS
JFR1
3
10
Rankin inlet healing FaCility [correctional]
nunavut territory, canada
Jury’s statement
More than one culturally specific project was submitted, but
this one excelled in expressing local culture architecturally
and responding innovatively to challenging climatic
conditions in a remote area. The jury was impressed with
every aspect of this project, starting with a progressive
and ambitious program of healing, tied to the Inuit concept
that an offender has fallen out of balance with his or her
community and that the task of the justice system is to
correct that balance and reconnect the offender with both
the natural order and society and culture. We were amazed
that part of the program entailed supervised hunting (yes,
with guns!) as part of the transition process.
All aspects of the design contribute to the overarching goals
of renewal and reintegration and of keeping cultural values
alive. The form (using curves found in traditional structures),
selection of materials (including natural materials such
as wood), and bright colors were all considered highly
appropriate.
This was also a challenging project to construct, and
the design overcomes the challenges. Located on the
permafrost, the building had to be raised up and built of
components that could be shipped in and assembled and
could resist the terribly harsh climate.
The jury believes a post-occupancy evaluation after a year
or two of operation would be valuable, including a follow-up
to measure the impact on recidivism and reintegration.
citations3
architect’s statement
The Rankin Inlet Healing Facility is a 48-bed correctional center for
men, located in the Canadian Arctic, on the shores of Hudson Bay
in Nunavut Territory. The majority of Nunavut’s population of 30,000
are Inuit. The rapid assimilation of Western culture has caused
dislocations within the traditional culture, resulting in elevated
incarceration and recidivism rates. The government of Nunavut is
committed to a system of community-based justice that encourages
communities to take greater responsibility for offenders and
victims. The facility, operating under direct supervision, comprises
two housing units: a 32-bed medium security unit and a 16-bed
minimum security unit for inmates who participate in community-
based programs.
The facility promotes healing and rehabilitation through inmate
interaction with staff, the outdoors, and the community. The
building’s curvilinear form, based on an understanding of Inuit
culture and tradition, is designed to facilitate the healing process
as well as demystify negative community stereotypes associated
with correctional facilities. The curvilinear forms also respond to
traditional building elements such as whalebone, sod, stone, snow,
and ice. The exterior is composed of wood, metal panels, and
glazing, with colorful details inspired by Arctic vegetation. Sitting
on steel piles, the building hovers over the permafrost ground and
engages the natural contours of the site. The facility consists of a
series of stepped shedlike structures. The roof, exterior walls, and
floor soffit details are designed to suit the harsh northern climate.
On the interior, natural materials such as stone and wood are
used in communal areas, including the chapel, gymnasium, and
dayrooms. Natural light, an important feature in the north, floods the
facility, especially during summer months. In addition, the building
includes sophisticated integrated electronic security and building
automation systems.
JFR1
3
4
Owner Department of Justice, Government of Nunavut
Data
Type of FacilityCorrectional
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area34,500 SF
Acres3.64
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF31,540/NA/31,540
New/Renovated/Total NAA20,340/NA/20,340
Construction Costs ActualSite development costs: $577,000 Building costs: $29,263,900Total construction costs: $29,840,900Building cost/GSF: $928
Project Delivery TypeDesign-bid-build
FundingGeneral funds
Status of Project Completed 2012
Capacity Number of beds: 48Type of beds: medium/minimum securityNumber of cells: 24
citations5
creDits
ArchitectParkin Architects LimitedToronto, Ontario
Civil/Structural/Mechanical/ Electrical EngineerAccutech Engineering Inc.
PhotographerGerry Kopelow Photographics, Inc.
all aspects of the design contribute to the overarching goals of renewal and reintegration...
“
“
JFR1
3
2Pittsburg, california
Jury’s statement
This jury’s initial response was to exclaim that this “looks like a
facility that everyone would enjoy working in,” and, on examination,
it became clear that it was exemplary in every way—from site
planning to the layout of spaces and choice of materials.
The building’s layout is marked by a clear progression of spaces.
Jury assembly is located to one side of the entry so that the
building can be accessed for public events when the courthouse is
closed. The jury particularly praised the building’s warmth, sense of
openness, and use of natural light throughout, including skylights
and high windows in the courtrooms.
The high quality materials are durable and appropriate and convey
a strong sense of dignity and civic character. This is a building
the community will be able to cherish for years to come. The only
concern was about cost—it may or may not be an expensive
building (the budget was withheld at the request of the owner);
however, the jury felt that it is appropriate to achieve this level of
quality and durability in important civic buildings.
RiChaRd e. aRnaSon JuStiCe CenteR [court]
citations7
architect’s statement
The justice center is the first funded full-service courthouse
constructed under California’s new Trial Court Facilities Standards.
The building’s limestone façade and transparent entry lobby, jury
assembly pavilion, and open galleries inspire a sense of dignified
stateliness combined with natural beauty and friendly openness.
The client’s goal was to provide a contemporary yet enduring civic
edifice appropriate to a satellite suburban courthouse, achieved
in a three-level, 73,500-square-foot building with traffic, family,
juvenile, criminal trial, and arraignment courtrooms.
Inside, the environment evokes a sense of calm. The design was
inspired by the site’s adjacent rolling foothills and surrounding river
delta, with simple, natural materials—limestone, terrazzo, redwood
veneers from salvaged logs, Trespa, and glass—selected for
longevity, ease of maintenance, and sustainability. The artwork at
the main entry echoes the shadows and colors of the nearby hills
and mountains, casting soft, waterlike shadows into the second-
story hallway.
The circulation is easy and clear for the public and efficient for
staff. Currently housing seven courts, the building is designed for
future expansion to 10. All courtrooms feature advanced courtroom
technology. The jury assembly, traffic court, and entry lobby are
designed to be isolated from the rest of the facility for after-hours
night court or community use without compromising the overall
building security.
The entry plaza recalls the “courthouse square” of the past;
decomposed granite steps and ramps lead up to the elevated
entry. The site is landscaped with native and drought-resistant
plants and trees. A network of bioswales provides the required
security standoff and minimizes storm water runoff. A green roof
over the jury pavilion adds life and natural beauty, reduces energy
loads, and slows storm water runoff. The project will receive LEED®
Silver certification.
“ this is a building the community will be able to cherish for years to come.
“
JFR1
3
8
OwnerJudicial Council of California,Administrative Office of the Courts
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area 180,774 SF
Acres4.15
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF73,500/NA/73,500
New/Renovated/Total NAA56,541/NA/56,541
Construction CostsActualSite development costs: NABuilding costs: NATotal construction costs: NABuilding cost/GSF: NA
Project Delivery TypeCM at risk
FundingState Court Facilities Construction Fund
Status of Project Completed 2010
Capacity Service population: 300,000–350,000Number of courts: 7Type of courts: criminal/high security, juvenile, traffic, arraignment
citations9
creDits
ArchitectHOKSan Francisco
Civil EngineerBKF Engineers
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing EngineerHOK
Structural EngineerLouie International
Landscape ArchitectHOK
Lighting DesignerHorton Lees Brogden Lighting
Acoustics/AudiovisualSmith, Fause McDonald Inc.
Court Planner/Interior Design/renderingHOK
Blast ConsultantHinman Consulting Engineers Inc.
Energy ConsultantArchitectural Energy Corporation
Signage and GraphicsSquare Peg Design
ContractorSundt Construction Inc.
Photographer David Wakely Photography
JFR1
3
10
San diego County women’S detention FaCility [detention]
Jury’s statement
This project is exemplary in incorporating not only evidence-
based programs but also evidence-based design to support those
programs. A growing body of research supports the notion that
an environment that provides natural light, views of nature, and
opportunities for positive interaction and communication can reduce
stress and encourage rehabilitation. This jail provides a college
campus–type atmosphere with programs that will promote changes
in behavior through rewards geared toward women and will prepare
them for re-entry into society. Through all these gestures, the project
takes the concept of a normalized environment to the next level,
setting up clear behavioral expectations for “normal” behavior (and
provides some hard, more traditional housing units for those who do
not respond to the program).
Among the features the jury appreciated are the open dorms that also
provide a degree of privacy consistent with security (research shows
that this encourages positive communications). The jury also liked
Santee, california
the campus, which provides numerous outdoor spaces for inmate
and staff activities; landscaping is carefully designed to provide
these places while not blocking views needed for supervision.
This project was one of the few that clearly incorporates thought
leadership and warrants recognition in that category. The jury
remarked, however, that many of these ideas have been available
(perhaps without as much research to substantiate them) for 25 years
(e.g., in California’s Contra Costa County jails and some others), and
they have not been taken up generally. In a certain sense, this project
should be the norm, not the leading edge. Once constructed and
occupied, this project also warrants a post-occupancy evaluation to
contribute the next increment to evidence-based design.
citations11
architect’s statement
Over a 10-year planning process, San Diego County developed
an innovative approach to the care and custody of women that
has the potential to establish a national adult incarceration model
based on normative operations and facility design. The San Diego
County Women’s Detention Facility (SDCWDF) comprises 1,216
beds on a 45-acre campus modeled on a community college; its
program-intensive management culture is intended to proactively
reduce recidivism. This distinctly transformative philosophy inspired
the design team to explore principles of choice, change, and
accountability in the development of an environment that would
support rehabilitative opportunities and the safety and security of
staff and inmates. The public face of the facility, the Administration/
Visitation building, features a residentially scaled, richly landscaped
campus responsive to the community context of a good neighbor.
The design is based on what are known to be predictable
psychological and physiological responses people have to their
environment. The site and building architecture support a culture of
expectations: appropriate and respectful behavior; positive change
through hard work and responsibility; respectful interaction with other
inmates and staff; personal growth from programs; and, ultimately,
successful transition back into the community as a productive
citizen. A safe and secure environment that seamlessly supports
staff will, in turn, reinforce effective interaction with inmates. Studies
show that women socialize differently from men; multicustody living
environments are clustered around exterior courtyards that integrally
connect the interior to the exterior spaces to create intimate or group
interaction. The program buildings are located in the heart of the
“campus core,” which will buzz with activity during the day and
evenings.
The project is targeting LEED® Gold certification. The SDCWDF will
be constructed in two phases in order to maintain operation of the
existing facility; the first phase of the complex is being built on the
adjacent, connected site.
JFR1
3
12
OwnerCounty of San Diego
Data
Type of FacilityDetention
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area1,960,200 SF
Acres45
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF461,620/NA/461,620
New/Renovated/Total NAA292,274/NA/292,274
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $26,000,000Building costs: $164,000,000Total construction costs: $190,000,000Building cost/GSF: $355
Project Delivery TypeDesign-build; best-value GMP
FundingPublic bond issue, general funds
Status of Project Under construction Estimated completion 2015
Capacity Number of beds: 1,216Type of beds: detentionNumber of cells: 544
... an environment that provides natural light, views of nature, and opportunities for positive interaction and communication can reduce stress and encourage rehabilitation.
““
citations13
creDits
Architect/Architect of recordKMD ArchitectsSan Francisco
Associate ArchitectHMC ArchitectsSan Diego
Construction ManagerVanir Construction Management
Program ManagerCarter Goble Lee
Design-Build ContractorBalfour Beatty Construction
Structural EngineerDCI Engineers
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineer Glumac
Civil EngineerBureau Veritas
Geotechnical EngineerLeighton Group
Landscape ArchitectLandLAB
Sustainability SpecialistHMC Architects
Security ElectronicsHK Electrical Engineers
Acoustical ConsultantNewson Brown Acoustics
Code ConsultantRJA
Mechanical and PlumbingCalifornia Comfort Systems
ElectricalHelix Electric
Food Service and LaundryR.W. Smith & Company
Detention EquipmentSouthern Folger
GraphicsHMC Architects/KMD Architects (renderings)
CitationS13
JFR1
3
14
wateRloo Region CouRthouSe [court]
Kitchener, ontario
Jury’s statement
The jury appreciated many aspects of this project, but what
distinguished it most clearly was its very effective incorporation of
unique features of the region into the design of its public spaces.
The presentation showed the imagery of the river’s dramatic turns
and sweeps through its stone bed, and then echoed this pattern
in the atrium and walkways. Too often, references to “contextual”
design do not actually deliver, but this project does—and it adds
layers of meaning about a sense of place, as well as way-finding
cues for visitors.
JFR1
3
14
The jury liked the way the design transitioned from the more fluid
exterior and public circulation spaces to more formal, defined,
and structured functional areas like offices and courtrooms,
where, for example, the same stone was used but in a more
regular geometry. One detail the jury particularly liked was the
design of seating outside the family courtrooms; the seating
was arrayed in small groups with screens to provide separation
between incompatible visitors.
citations15
architect’s statement
The Waterloo Region Courthouse is a competition-winning design
that consolidates three regional Superior and Ontario Courts
facilities into one integrated facility. It houses 30 courtrooms, two
intake courtrooms, and six conference settlement rooms. The
building is organized in two blocks, with the taller block housing the
courts and the lower block housing court support spaces. These
blocks are connected internally by a three-story sky-lit atrium.
The local Grand River is a source of inspiration for the design of
the site landscape, the curvilinear composition of the atrium, and
the horizontally striated material palette. This organic theme also
addresses the desire for the character of the courthouse to evolve
from one dominated by an architectural expression of power and
stability to that of a more open, accessible institution.
The building responds to the immediate context through its scale
and mass and through the design of the public realm around
the building. While the court slab is in keeping with the scale of
the taller buildings to the north and west, the lower-level podium
elements create a street-related massing that forms the edges of
a new public plaza. The required physical security barriers are
concealed in an extensive linear landscape that surrounds the
building, linking two previously isolated parks in a new upgraded
public realm.
The interior design and character transition from an informal,
naturally inspired public realm to a more rectilinear and restrained
inner realm, representing the rule of law and the institution of
justice. The complex is on target to achieve LEED® Silver and
includes a number of energy-saving, resource-saving, and internal
environment features.
JFR1
3
16
OwnerProvince of Ontario
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area146,741 SF
Acres3.37
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF446,428/NA/446,428
New/Renovated/Total NAA240,299/NA/240,299
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $7,000,000Building costs: $225,000,000Total construction costs: $232,000,000Building cost/GSF: $500
Project Delivery TypeP3, DBFM
FundingPrivate financing lease back
Status of Project Completed 2013
Capacity Service population: 553,000Number of courts: 30Type of courts: criminal/high security, civil, domestic, juvenile, hearings
citations17
the local grand River is a source of inspiration for the design of the site landscape...
“
creDits
ArchitectNORR Limited Architects and EngineersToronto, Ontario
Structural EngineerNORR Limited
Mechanical EngineerHidi Rae & Associates
Electrical EngineerMulvey & Banani International Inc.
LandscapingDillion Consulting
Courthouse ConsultantAECOM
LEED ConsultantEnermodal
Signage ConsultantForge Media
Code ConsultantLRI
Audiovisual ConsultantSight N Sound Design
Acoustic ConsultantSwallow Acoustics
PhotographerShai Gil
“
CoRReCtional and detention
FaCilitieS
JFR1
3
20
Sebring, Florida
architect’s statement
The new model prison for Mexico’s Penitentiary System is unique
because it provides a solution not only for the design of new facilities
but also for the renovation and reuse of existing facilities to meet the
requirements of direct supervision operations. The space standards,
security guidelines, and operational practices developed for this
program enabled the facilities to meet the American Correctional
Association’s international standards for accreditation. The ACA
has accredited all the existing facilities in which this program was
applied, and many received 100% compliance ratings. The project
has moved the Mexican Penitentiary System from substandard
levels for minimal requirements of confinement and operations
to an international example of reform as highlighted at the 2012
International Corrections and Prisons Association Conference. In
addition, the project provides a map to advance the system from
Mexico city, Mexico
approximately 4,000 beds to nearly 30,000 beds within five years.
This increased capacity has allowed the country to take control of
federal inmates from poorly operated state facilities.
The model prison is the basis for all future planning of not only
the federal penitentiary system but also state prisons and prisons
in other Latin American countries. The model was used to help
create new laws for confinement in Mexico. The commitment to
making extensive improvements in penitentiary operations by the
former Secretaría de Seguridad Pública (SSP, Secretariat of Public
Security) has established Mexico as the example for positive
change. The new Secretaría de Gobernación (SEGOB, Ministry
of Interior) has set even higher goals for creating one of the most
progressive penitentiary systems in the world and continuing the
model program with an additional 50,000 beds planned during the
next administration.
new model PRiSon FoR mexiCo’S FedeRal PenitentiaRy SyStem
CoRReCtional and detention FaCilitieS21
OwnerMexico Federal Secretary of Public Security
Data
Type of FacilityDetention
Type of ConstructionNew, addition, renovation
Site Area130,283,604 SF
Acres2990.9
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF1,133,848/2,267,696/3,401,544
New/Renovated/Total NAANA/NA/NA
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: NABuilding costs: NATotal construction costs: NABuilding cost/GSF: NA
Project Delivery TypeMultiple delivery method
FundingGeneral funds, federal government
Status of Project Under construction 2013
Capacity Number of beds: 6,420Type of beds: supmaximum/minimum security Number of cells: 3,274
creDits
ArchitectCGL CompaniesMiami
Photographer Secretaría de Seguridad Pública/Secretaría de Gobernación/CGL Companies
21
JFR1
3
22
wake County detention CenteR, PhaSe 2 exPanSion
Wake county, north carolina
architect’s statement
Wake County is growing at a rate of over 30,000 new residents per
year. The phase 2 expansion is an addition to the existing phase
1B (housing only) to address the county’s continued population
growth, space shortages, integration of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and consolidation of services for efficiency
and control. The new 420,521-square-foot detention facility
consolidates detention services/activities that previously were
located in three separate facilities. Some of those consolidated
services include booking and open intake, City/County Bureau
of Identification, medical clinic and infirmary, academic services,
food service, laundry, and warehouse. The new booking and
open intake program includes identification, magistrates, inmate
property storage, and transfer. The facility houses 672 new inmate
beds, 224 single wet cells, and 448 beds in dormitories (56-bed
dorms). At the same time, the county is maintaining the initiative of
remaining even with, or slightly ahead of, demand for bed spaces.
The project has been well received by the citizens of Wake County
as innovative, responsible, and forward thinking. The design
communicates a safe and secure environment for the public,
justice personnel, and the incarcerated, advancing the mission of
the criminal justice system. The design concentrated on enhancing
staff retention, efficiency, and morale, while streamlining training
for new employees. The end result is a facility that is physically
maintainable, functional, durable, sustainable, and operational day
to day and through periods of natural disasters.
CoRReCtional and detention FaCilitieS23
OwnerCounty of Wake, North Carolina
Data
Type of FacilityDetention, law enforcement
Type of ConstructionNew, renovation
Site Area861,181 SF
Acres19.77
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF414,599/5,922/420,521
New/Renovated/Total NAA273,376/4,652/278,028
Construction CostsActualSite development costs: $4,012,751Building costs: $124,232,284Total construction costs: $128,245,035Building cost/GSF: $295.42
Project Delivery TypeConstruction management
FundingGeneral funds
Status of Project Completed 2012
Capacity Number of beds: 672Number of cells: 224Service population: 952,000Staff population: 62 (sworn, 27; nonsworn, 35)Forensics lab: 28,904 SF
creDits
Architect/Prime Architect of recordLittle Diversified Architectural ConsultingDurham, NC
Associate ArchitectHDR ArchitectureDallas and Chicago
ProgrammingCarter Goble Lee Management Services
Interior DesignLittle Diversified Architectural Consulting
Code ConsultantRolf Jensen + Associates Inc.
Civil/LandscapeKimley-Horn and Associates Inc.
continued on page 50
CouRt FaCilitieS
JFR1
3
26
Chatham County tRial CouRthouSe
Savannah, Georgia
architect’s statement
The design of the new trial courthouse respects Savannah’s historic
Oglethorpe plan, which is organized by a series of streets, squares,
and lanes. The courthouse complex, which includes the existing
courthouse, vacant jail, and a parking garage, occupies what was
originally three separate city blocks. In the course of developing the
existing courts complex, these streets and lanes were terminated at
Montgomery Street, resulting in an oversized city block that violated
the historic fabric of the city. The concept for the new courthouse
was to reinstate, to the greatest extent possible, the original historic
fabric of the city and to have the courthouse itself respond directly
to the parameters of Oglethorpe’s plan.
Consistent with Oglethorpe’s plan, York and State streets have been
reestablished on the courts campus as ”streets,” re-creating three
distinct city blocks aligning with the original street grid. The new
trial courthouse further reinforces the city plan through its massing
and design. In Oglethorpe’s plan, each city block is bifurcated by a
lane that results in a consistent negative space in the center of the
city’s blocks. The new trial court building uses the urban negative
space implied by York Lane to organize the courthouse into two
distinctive volumes, each with four levels, around a central atrium
that aligns directly with York Lane. This allows the courthouse to
deploy the large building program on the site while respecting both
the city plan and the existing scale and massing of the surrounding
structures.
The façade of the atrium is fully glazed to strongly reinforce the
concept of the negative space of the lane running through the
courthouse. Each of the flanking volumes on either side of the
atrium is skinned with limestone and punched openings, detailed to
emphasize the vertical dimension. The exterior treatment of the two
volumes of the courthouse is reflected in the interior facades, which
further strengthen the massing concept defined by the negative
space of York Lane.
court facilities27
OwnerChatham County, Georgia
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area157,682 SF
Acres3.27
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF165,000/NA/165,000
New/Renovated/Total NAA141,887/NA/141,887
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $4,100,000Building costs: $55,900,000Total construction costs: $60,000,000Building cost/GSF: $364
Project Delivery TypeDesign-bid-build
FundingPublic bond issue
Status of Project Estimated completion 2015
Capacity Number of courts: 13Type of courts: criminal/high security, civil
creDits
Design Architect/Architect of recordDewberry Architects Inc.Fairfax, VA
Associate ArchitectBarnard ArchitectsSavannah
Structural EngineerWm. Hunter Saussy III PC
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection EngineerS.L. King
Civil EngineerThomas and Hutton
Geotechnical EngineerTerracon
Landscape ArchitectSmith and VandenBulck Inc.
continued on page 50
JFR1
3
28
Sebring, Florida
FRanklin County Common PleaS CouRthouSe
columbus, ohio
architect’s statement
The Franklin County Commissioners challenged the design team
to create a landmark building for the common pleas court; the
program included 20 trial courtrooms, 10 magistrate courtrooms,
arraignment and ceremonial courtrooms, judges’ chambers, and
“settlement suites,” used for the resolution of cases without tying up
courtrooms, a critical necessity for judges managing 15,000 cases
a year.
The visual expression captures all elements of a traditional
courthouse and translates them into a design statement for today
and tomorrow. The building’s simple form is a direct reflection of the
program of uses within. The ample glass wall systems enable users
to visually understand the building and how they move through it.
The courtrooms are arranged along a main corridor in a manner
clearly apparent from outside. The elevator core, located on the
exterior, recalls the traditional courthouse clock tower and provides
east-west views from the elevator cabs. The horizontal orientation
is sympathetic to adjacent historic buildings.
The glass façade acts as a finely tuned, breathable membrane
that increases efficiency and sustainability and contributes to the
building’s LEED® Gold certification, the first courthouse in Ohio.
Glazed curtain wall systems with optimized louvers and screens
provide sun shading to minimize solar gain, maximize views, and
allow daylight to enter. Folding surfaces and planes set up a priority
of scale at the street level and then continue on to contain the
courtroom levels. High ceilings and an east-west orientation allow
maximum light into courtrooms. The public areas are designed to
reflect the dignified nature of the courts with durable and easily
maintained materials. The project includes a civic plaza, a green
lobby canopy, and outdoor public spaces.
court facilities29
OwnerFranklin County Commissioners
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site area167,053 SF
Acres3.8
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF324,579/NA/324,579
New/Renovated/Total NAA211,153/NA/211,153
Construction CostsActualSite development costs: $6,554,626Building costs: $85,977,420Total construction costs: $92,532,050Building cost/ GSF: $265
Project Delivery TypeMultiple prime contract, construction management
FundingPublic bond issue
Status of Project Completed 2010
Capacity Service population: 1,163,414Number of courts: 32Type of courts: criminal/high security, civil, arraignment
creDits
Architect of recordDesignGroupColumbus, OH
Design ArchitectArquitectonicaNew York, NY
Courts ArchitectRicciGreene Associates
Structural EngineerShelley Metz Baumann Hawk
Mechanical/Electrical EngineerHeapy Engineering
Civil EngineerDLZ Ohio
CouRt FaCilitieS29
continued on page 50
JFR1
3
30
Sebring, Florida
geoRge C. young u.S. CouRthouSe and FedeRal building
orlando, Florida
architect’s statement
The modernization of the George C. Young Federal Building and
Courthouse demonstrates the value of preserving and giving new
life to significant civic structures. Today, the Young building stands
as a focal point of a revitalized government campus in the growing
urban core of downtown Orlando.
Built in 1975, the original building did not provide the separate
circulation systems for users that are standard in today’s modern
courthouse planning. Stripping the interior back to the structure
allowed the design team to rethink the floor plan and establish
a simple organizing parti based on bringing daylight and views
into a deep, existing floor plate. Where program elements occupy
the edges, light is brought to the interior through glass partitions
or clerestory office windows. The plan achieves openness and
transparency and also creates the required secure pathways.
A new entry pavilion and circulation tower highlight the building’s
exterior transformation while also facilitating secure movement in
the building. This addition reorients the entry procession through
the existing park on the western half of the site. The Ronald Bladen
sculpture Host of the Ellipse, which was refurbished and installed
on the site as part of the Art in Architecture Program, highlights
the building’s approach. The elegant proportions of the circulation
tower, mirrored by the 35-foot-tall sculpture, create a dynamic
exterior setting that anchors the campus within the community.
Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
the project provides four new bankruptcy courtrooms, four new
chambers, and Clerk of Court and U.S. Attorneys spaces. The
renovation also focused on energy usage and sustainability.
Transforming the existing structure to a high-performance building
reduced both energy and water consumption.
court facilities31
OwnerU.S. General Services Administration Region 4
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionAddition, renovation
Site Area71,800 SF
Acres1.65
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF15,740/188,260/204,000
New/Renovated/Total NAA0/153,296/153,296
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $1,408,500Building costs: $46,798,940Total construction costs: $48,207,440 Building cost/GSF: $229.36
Project Delivery TypeCM at risk
FundingARRA
Status of Project Completed 2012
Capacity Service population: 2,781,888Number of courts: 4Type of courts: civil, bankruptcy
creDits
ArchitectDLR GroupOrlando, FL
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing EngineerJohn J. Christie & Associates Inc.
Civil EngineerKlima Weeks Civil Engineering Inc.
Structural EngineerMaster Consulting Engineers Inc.
LandscapeJCR Consulting
SignageMari Frith and Associates Inc.
Security/Telecom Audiovisual/AcousticsNewcomb & Boyd
continued on page 50
JFR1
3
32
John m. Roll u.S. CouRthouSe
architect’s statement
The John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse sustainably reinterprets and
updates the classic American courthouse. The project, which
is targeting LEED® Gold certification, was awarded through a
design-build competition sponsored by the General Services
Administration’s Design Excellence Program. Judge Roll, Arizona’s
chief federal judge who was killed in the 2011 shooting that
wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had been a strong
advocate of the project.
Designed to accommodate the large and growing caseload of
immigrant detainees along the Arizona-Mexico border, the court-
house delivers streamlined, secure handling of mass defendants.
The 60,000-square-foot building houses two courtrooms, judges’
cham bers, jury rooms, and U.S. Marshals facilities as well as district
and bankruptcy court services.
Located near the city’s Main Street, the courthouse also offers
an outdoor civic space. Twenty-first-century durable materials
and technologies have been used to adapt the familiar classical
Yuma, arizona
elements of entablature, colonnade, and portico to the harsh desert
climate. A welcoming “front porch” at the entrance is formed by
an expansive photovoltaic canopy, held up by naturally weathered
steel columns, which generates more than 21% of the building’s
energy load. The entry procession includes steel bridges spanning
a landscaped arroyo (which also functions as a water-retention
basin), a stone plinth, and a series of staggered stone site walls.
The principal façade is composed of flanking sandstone masses
inset with a double-height glass lobby. The juxtaposition of stone
and glass contrasts a magisterial sense of permanence with
lightness and transparency, conveying the balance of precedent
and openness in the justice system. The east and west faces
of the building are shaded by a “living wall,” a weathered steel
trellis structure supporting vines that provide dappled, controlled
sunlight to the perimeter spaces inside.
court facilities33
OwnerU.S. General Services Administration
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area122,000 SF
Acres2.8
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF60,000/NA/60,000
New/Renovated/Total NAA38,600/NA/38,600
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $3,000,000Building costs: $20,000,000Total construction costs: $23,000,000 Building cost/GSF: $383
Project Delivery TypeDesign-build
FundingARRA, federal government
Status of Project Under construction Estimated completion 2013
Capacity Number of courts: 2Type of courts: criminal/high security, bankruptcy
creDits
ArchitectEhrlich ArchitectsCulver City, CA
Design-Builder SUNDT Construction Inc.
Structural Engineer Caruso Turley Scott
Mechanical Engineer LSW Engineers Inc.
Civil EngineerPsomas
Landscape Architect Ten Eyck Landscape Architects Inc.
Sr. Electrical Designer LSW Engineers Inc.
GraphicsBezier CG (renderings)
JFR1
3
34
architect’s statement
The Judicial Center expansion serves as the keystone for a complex
of buildings and open spaces on a four-block county government
campus. By reorienting the existing judicial building, the new
courts facility formally addresses Main Street with a public plaza,
providing a formal setting and space for procession. The campus
spans both sides of the downtown thoroughfare and incorporates a
landscaped traffic circle.
Design inspiration for the courthouse came, in part, from the
county’s assemblage of public buildings, including the 1922 historic
courthouse, the courts annex with its circular atrium, the current
judicial building, and the county criminal justice facility. In keeping
with this diverse late-20th-century context, the new courthouse is
transitional in its planar architecture of brick, glass, and metal yet
clearly expressive of today. The material color palette and campus
vocabulary have been reinterpreted at new scales and with new
forms.
lake County JudiCial CenteR exPanSion
tavares, Florida
Along Main Street, the southern façade reveals the civic purpose of
the courthouse; large windows mark the public lobbies of the court
floors. This prominent elevation evokes references to the opposing
historic courthouse with its masonry arcaded base, columnar
expression, and metallic sunscreen cornice. Sunlight-filled public
spaces and courtrooms symbolize the openness and impartiality of
the judicial process and humanize the setting for visitors, judges,
and staff.
The courthouse is simply organized: upper-floor public spaces
facing Main Street feature six courtrooms, judicial chambers,
and jury assembly and clerical functions. These components
are anchored by the six-story, precast concrete and glass atrium
“tower,” which contains the public elevators.
court facilities35
OwnerLake County Board of Commissioners
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew, renovation
Site Area453,024 SF
Acres10.4
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF168,026/120,100/288,126
New/Renovated/Total NAA116,212/95,270/211,482
Construction CostsActualSite development costs: $1,850,000Building costs: $38,099,580Total construction costs: $39,949,580Building cost/GSF: $226.75 (new)
Project Delivery TypeConstruction management
Status of Project Completed 2013
Capacity Number of courts: 14Type of courts: criminal/high security, civil, domestic, juvenile, hearings
creDits
ArchitectHeery InternationalOrlando, FL
Interior DesignHeery International
Electrical/Mechanical EngineerHeery International
Landscape ArchitectHeery International
ProgrammingCarter Goble Lee
Audiovisual/Technology/AcousticsNewcomb & Boyd
PhotographerBob Egleston
County Courthouse Florida - Site Plan
County Courthouse - Site Plan
JFR1
3
36
Sebring, Florida
Stanley J. RoSzkowSki u.S. CouRthouSe
rockford, illinois
architect’s statement
The courthouse is a seven-level, 198,000-square-foot facility with
five courtrooms (three U.S. district courts and two U.S. bankruptcy
courts), a grand jury room, and space to accommodate the future
expansion of a sixth courtroom within the facility.
Located in downtown Rockford near a recently constructed
detention facility and adjacent to local law enforcement facilities,
the courthouse is intended to be a catalyst for the rebirth and
redevelopment of the downtown. Facility parking is accommodated
in a below-grade, private, secure deck. Public parking is provided
off-site.
The site was developed by combining two city blocks into one
larger block to accommodate green space and meet the 30-year
expansion needs of the facility. The building’s core consists of a
five-story, open public atrium and vertical public circulation. This
core will serve as the centerpiece of the future expansion, with site
area to accommodate an additional six courtrooms by mirroring the
six-courtroom plan across the public atrium.
The courthouse contains maximum security court holding facilities
operated by the U.S. Marshals Service and tenant/office space for
the USMS, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, pretrial and probation, U.S.
District Clerks, U.S. Bankruptcy Clerks, as well as judicial office
space. The courthouse was designed under the GSA’s Design
Excellence Program and is intended to be a 100-year facility.
court facilities37
OwnerU.S. General Services Administration
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area266,300 SF
Acres6.1
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF198,000/NA/198,000
New/Renovated/Total NAA105,000/NA/105,000
Construction CostsActualSite development costs: $6,000,000Building costs: $72,800,000Total construction costs: $88,000,000 Building cost/GSF: $416
Project Delivery TypeDesign-bid-build, construction management, CM at risk
FundingGeneral funds, adequate financing
Status of Project Completed 2012
Capacity Number of courts: 5+1 futureType of courts: criminal/high security, civil, district, bankruptcy
creDits
ArchitectDewberry Architects Inc.Peoria, IL
Associate ArchitectKoetter Kim & Assoc. Inc.Boston
Structural/Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection EngineerDewberry Architects Inc.
Courts Planning/Tenant Fit-Out/Interior Design Dewberry Architects Inc.
Civil EngineerMcClure Engineering Assoc. Inc.
Landscape ArchitectSmithGroup JJR LLC
continued on page 50
JFR1
3
38
Sebring, Florida
SuPeRioR CouRt oF CaliFoRnia, County oF kingS, hanFoRd CouRthouSe
Hanford, california
architect’s statement
The city of Hanford, located in the south central San Joaquin Valley
region of California, is the county seat of Kings County. The aim
of this new court facility is to consolidate all court services and
proceedings that occur in the surrounding area into one central
location. Existing conditions at each of these facilities affect the
operational efficiency of the court system and raise security
concerns. The new courthouse brings all elements of the court under
one roof in a safe, secure, and operationally efficient environment.
The four-story courthouse is organized around a central atrium
space that simplifies way-finding and creates adequate waiting
space for high-volume public counters. On the first floor, all public
counters are accessed from the atrium. An electronic queuing
system is used to control public access to the counter areas. Civil
and criminal court clerks are cross-trained to handle all public
inquiries. Two counter areas also can be accessed along the
building’s exterior. This unique planning feature enhances efficiency
by reducing the need for all visitors to proceed through security and
enter the building to conduct court business.
Levels two, three, and four feature four courtrooms each. Of the
12 total courtrooms, one is for large ceremonial proceedings. On
the second floor, one jury deliberation room serves the civil and
family courtrooms. On the upper floors, designated for criminal
trials, the ratio of jury rooms to courtrooms increases. The central
atrium space gives each courtroom natural light, although daylight
and views are controlled for security purposes and to manage the
courtroom setting for evidence presentation.
court facilities39
OwnerJudicial Council of California,Administrative Office of the Courts
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area417,200 SF
Acres9.577
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF160,065/NA/160,065
New/Renovated/Total NAA104,193/NA/104,193
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $7,474,281Building costs: $85,245,043Total construction costs: $92,719,324Building cost/GSF: $579.26
Project Delivery TypeSingle prime contract, CM at risk
FundingPublic bond issue, state revenue bonds
Status of Project Estimated completion 2015
Capacity Service population: 152,982Number of courts: 12Type of courts: criminal/high security, civil, domestic, juvenile, hearings
creDits
ArchitectDLR GroupOrlando, FL
Architecture/Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing EngineerDLR Group
Structural EngineerBuehler & Buehler SE Inc.
Low Voltage EngineerTEECOM Design Group
Civil EngineerCunningham Engineering Corp.
Acoustical EngineerAcoustical Engineering Consultants
continued on page 50
JFR1
3
40
Sebring, Florida
yuba City CouRthouSe
Yuba city, california
architect’s statement
This project forms the centerpiece of Yuba City’s developing civic
center neighborhood. The design is based on a profoundly simple,
cross-shaped building plan that efficiently achieves three critical
goals: (1) it provides four strong elevations in a neighborhood
context that has no “front” or “back” sides, giving the courthouse
a commanding regional presence; (2) it creates four distinctive
courtyards that provide spatial amenities for both staff and the
visiting public; (3) it evokes the shape and civic presence of Yuba
City’s historic courthouse, which the court is vacating.
The limited palette of exterior materials includes a perimeter skin
of textured porcelain tile, with brighter, crisp, intimate plaster
courtyards that appear carved out of the solid surround. These
subtractive spaces mitigate the hot climate of California’s Central
Valley and are sustainably supplemented through strategic
building orientation, a self-shading building form, and carefully
placed overhangs and shading devices. Throughout the project,
landscaping provides a primary focus, softening the presence of
the “building as object” and shifting the focus to the social and
operational spaces the building affords.
court facilities41
OwnerJudicial Council of California,Administrative Office of the Courts
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area178,160 SF
Acres4.09
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF73,840/NA/73,840
New/Renovated/Total NAA46,621/NA/46,621
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $3,724,800Building costs: $34,675,200Total construction costs: $38,400,000Building cost/GSF: $470
Project Delivery TypeDesign-bid-build
FundingPublic bond issue
Status of Project Estimated completion 2014
Capacity Service population: 94,919Number of courts: 6 (expandable to 7) Type of courts: criminal/high security, juvenile, traffic
creDits
ArchitectRossDrulisCusenbery ArchitectureSonoma, CA
Structural EngineerRutherford and Chekene
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection EngineerWSP Flack + Kurtz
Civil EngineerNorthstar Engineering Group
LandscapeGLS Landscape Architecture
SecurityGuidepost Solutions (formerly SafirRosetti)
continued on page 51
JFR1
3
42
Sebring, Florida
u.S. CouRthouSe, loS angeleS (deSign ComPetition)
los angeles, california
architect’s statement
Lady Justice balancing the scales of truth and fairness offers an
analogy for the resolution of complex matters. Similarly, the design
concept for the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse was guided by
a vision to synthesize symbolic and functional objectives into a
coherent, relevant, and inspiring composition. The objective was
harmonious resolution of multifaceted priorities: advancing the
“Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture” and design excellence,
formulating a courthouse design that captures the spirit of Los
Angeles, functional planning, energy efficiency, and safeguarding
the public’s trust through the responsible use of public assets.
The design of the courthouse tower is distinguished by
courtrooms organized two per floor. Each element is informed
by a clear architectural narrative: public lobbies facing northeast
are transparent and suggest access to all; judicial spaces facing
southwest feature sun screens that signify diverse perspectives and
a vibrant democracy; and the courtrooms are solid objects affirming
the significance of these spaces and the legal proceedings that
occur within.
The tower solution for courtrooms and chambers offers important
benefits: plentiful courtroom daylight (proven to increase acuity
and alertness), panoramic views, and short travel distances from
judicial chambers to courtrooms. The travel distance from each
chamber door to the nearest courtroom door ranges from 53 feet
to 69 feet, with an average distance of just 55 feet, a 13-second
journey assuming normal walking pace.
The tower composition rests on a three-story base and asserts
clarity, order, and resolution. The architecture of the base captures
the spirit of the city with indoor/outdoor spaces, people places, and
an informal atmosphere. The one exception to this informality is
the entry, which is formally aligned to the portico, lobby, and tower
above. Mediating between the tower and base is a portico and
trellis, which shade outdoor public spaces, signal the presence of a
civic landmark, and frame the public realm below.
court facilities43
OwnerU.S. General Services Administration
Data
Type of FacilityCourt
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area155,500 SF
Acres3.6
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF545,000/NA/545,000
New/Renovated/Total NAA365,000/NA/365,000
Construction CostsEstimatedSite development costs: $6,000,000Building costs: $274,000,000Total construction costs: $280,000,000Building cost/GSF: $503
Project Delivery TypeDesign-build
FundingGeneral funds
Status of Project One of four commissioned design-build guaranteed proposals; not selected for construction
Capacity Service population: 400Number of courts: 24Type of courts: criminal/high security
creDits
ArchitectNBBJSeattle
Architecture/Interior Design/EGD NBBJ
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Structural/Building Envelope EngineerBuro Happold
Geotechnical EngineerShannon & Wilson
Civil EngineerPsomas
Fire Protection EngineerRolf Jensen & Associates
continued on page 51
law enFoRCement FaCilitieS
JFR1
3
46
JohnSon County SheRiFF’S CRiminaliStiCS laboRatoRy
olathe, Kansas
architect’s statement
The 62,500-square-foot lab realizes a new vision for collaborative
investigative forensic research and leadership in sustainability. The
facility provides law enforcement with specialized forensic research
laboratories and collaborative work space for investigators.
The new facility is not a single laboratory, but actually nine
distinct laboratory spaces brought together in one building. The
nine laboratory spaces (controlled substances, trace evidence,
toxicology, biology, latent prints, firearms and tool marks, digital and
multimedia, evidence control, and crime scene investigation) reflect
the unique needs of each discipline. Careful planning has resulted
in spaces specifically designed to maximize efficiency and work
flow while maintaining the highest levels of safety and security.
The county continued its commitment to environmental
stewardship of county resources by devoting significant
resources to the construction and energy efficiency of the
building. As a result, it is anticipated that the building will achieve
a LEED® Platinum certification.
The new crime lab is co-located with the County Communications
Center, a LEED Gold facility. Benefits to both buildings include
greater site security, storm water management, secure employee
parking, and sustainable landscape and hardscape solutions
as well as shared central plant, exercise room, and outdoor
courtyard.
Law enforcement faciLities47
OwnerJohnson County, Kansas
Data
Type of FacilityLaw enforcement
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area414,195 SF
Acres9.501
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF62,500/NA/62,500
New/Renovated/Total NAA38,750/NA/38,750
Construction CostsActualSite development costs: $1,250,000Building costs: $21,400,000Total construction costs: $22,650,000Building cost/GSF: $342
Project Delivery TypeConstruction management
FundingPublic bond issue
Status of Project Completed 2012
Capacity Service population: 552,991Staff population: 56 (sworn, 28; nonsworn, 28)Forensics lab: 24,625 SF
creDits
ArchitectPGAV ArchitectsWestwood, KS
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing EngineerCrime Lab Design
Structural EngineerWalter P. Moore
Civil EngineerShafer, Kline & Warren Inc.
Landscape DesignBowman Bowman Novick
Laboratory Programming and PlanningCrime Lab Design
LEED ConsultantCrime Lab Design
continued on page 51
JFR1
3
48
toRonto PoliCe SeRViCe 14 diViSion
toronto, ontario
architect’s statement
The new divisional building, located in Toronto’s historic Dufferin
Grove neighborhood, characterized by century-old family
residences, is a catalyst for urban revitalization. The Toronto Police
Service is committed to the philosophy of community policing, and
the design process and the architecture reflect this commitment.
Community input was essential to the process, and community
representatives served on the Design Committee.
The program called for criminal investigation offices, community
policing offices, special project facilities, sally ports, booking and
detention facilities, soft and hard interview rooms, training space,
administrative offices, and support spaces including lockers, a
fitness room, and a lunchroom with outdoor space. Public space
includes the main entrance lobby and community room.
A masonry garden wall defines the public zone from the secure zone.
The interior and exterior secure functions are within the boundary
of the wall, while the publicly accessible spaces (lobby, community
room, community landscape) are outside the wall, connected to
the community. Secure parking and detention facilities are located
below grade. All secure offices are accommodated in two floors
above grade, accessed through a single secure entry off the main
lobby. Conceived as a “park pavilion,” the main lobby provides
clear access to the reception desk and the community room.
The reddish masonry of the landscape wall reflects the materiality
of the neighborhood. The stone-clad second floor floats over the
masonry wall, establishing continuous clerestory glazing that
maximizes natural light in the workplace. Exterior materials are
continued in the entrance lobby and community room, reinforcing
the connection to the community landscape. Other interior materials
were selected for durability and ease of maintenance. The building
is targeting LEED® Silver and includes geothermal heating and
cooling and green roofs.
Law enforcement faciLities49
OwnerToronto Police Service
Data
Type of FacilityLaw enforcement
Type of ConstructionNew
Site Area73,748 SF
Acres1.693
Area of BuildingNew/Renovated/Total GSF117,369/NA/117,369
New/Renovated/Total NAA69,714/NA/69,714
Construction CostsActualSite development costs: $3,150,000Building costs: $25,070,000Total construction costs: $28,220,000Building cost/GSF: $213
Project Delivery TypeDesign-bid-build
FundingGeneral funds
Status of Project Completed 2012
Capacity Staff population: 380 (sworn, 350; nonsworn, 30) Forensics lab: 1,300 SF
creDits
ArchitectStantec Architecture Ltd.Toronto, Ontario
Civil EngineerStantec
Structural EngineerHalcrow Yolles
Mechanical EngineerSmith & Andersen
Landscapegh3
Electrical/IT/Audiovisual Mulvey & Banani
EnvironmentalStantec
Photographer Richard Johnson
CReditS continued
wake cOunty DetentiOn centercontinued from page 23
Structural EngineerFleming and Associates PA
Plumbing/Mechanical/Electrical/Security EngineerHDR Architecture
LEED APHDR Architecture
Sprinkler/Fire ProtectionNL Pettit + Associates
Food Service/LaundryFoodesign Inc.
Cost EstimatingHarris & Associates Construction Consulting
roofing ConsultantStafford Consulting Engineering
CommissioningRMF Engineering
PhotographerMark Herboth, Herboth Photography Inc.
chatham cOunty trial cOurthOusecontinued from page 27
Interior DesignNational Office Systems
Cost EstimatingThe Strong Group
Court TechnologyDewberry Architects Inc./National Center for States Courts (NCSC)
LEED ConsultantTrident Sustainability Group
Building Envelope ConsultantSimpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
GraphicsArchiBIM (exterior & interior renderings)
Franklin cOunty cOmmOn Pleas cOurthOusecontinued from page 29
Landscape ArchitectMKSK (formerly Kinzelman Kline Gossman)
SecurityProfessional Systems Engineering
Court TechnologyPolysonics Corporation
Elevator ConsultantLerch Bates
Code ConsultantCode Consultants, Inc.
Cost EstimatingJohn A. Forgos & Associates
PhotographerBrad Feinknopf/Feinknopf Photography
GeOrGe c. yOunG u.s. cOurthOuse anD FeDeral BuilDinGcontinued from page 31
ContractorSkanska
PhotographerMark Boisclair Photography Inc.
suPeriOr cOurt OF caliFOrnia, cOunty OF kinGs, hanFOrD cOurthOusecontinued from page 39
Landscape ArchitectThe HLA Group
Construction ManagerSundt Construction Inc.
SignageSquare Peg Design
GraphicsDLR Group (renderings)
stanley J. rOsZkOwski u.s. cOurthOusecontinued from page 37
Security/Technology ConsultantDewberry Architects Inc.
Cost EstimatorDewberry Architects Inc.
Code ConsultantRolf Jensen & Assoc. Inc.
Acoustics/Audiovisual ConsultantPolysonics Corp.
Blast Engineering ConsultantHinman Consulting Engineers
LEED ConsultantSSR Cx LLC
Construction Manager at riskCaddell Construction Inc.
PhotographyBallogg Photography Inc.
GraphicsDewberry Architects Inc. & Koetter Kim & Assoc., Inc. (renderings)
JFR1
3
50
yuBa city cOurthOusecontinued from page 41
Acoustics/AudiovisualCharles M. Salter Associates Inc.
Sustainable DesignSimon & Associates
CostDavis Langdon
ElevatorSyska Hennessy Group Inc.
WaterproofingSimpson Gumpertz and Heger
Environmental DesignTreadwell & Rollo, A Langan Company
Specifications WriterDTR Consulting Services
SignageSquare Peg Design
GraphicsRossDrulisCusenbery Architecture (renderings)
u.s. cOurthOuse, lOs anGeles (DesiGn cOmPetitiOn)continued from page 43
Blast EngineerHinman Consulting Engineers
LightingBuro Happold
General ContractorMortenson
Elevator Consultant, AECGreenbush Constulting
Audiovisual DesignVeneklasen Associates
Security/hardware/Telecom ConsultantTransTech Systems
Graphics NBBJ (renderings)
JOhnsOn cOunty sheriFF’s criminalistics laBOratOrycontinued from page 47
Peer review Building Envelope ConsultantHeitman Associates
Acoustics/Audiovisual CommunicationsCoffeen Fricke & Associates Inc.
Cost EstimatingConstruction Management Resources Inc.
Commissioning AgentVirocon
GeotechnicalTerracon
PhotographerMichael Robinson
CReditS51
Arquitectonica Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse (Design Architect) ............. 28
Barnard Architects Chatham County Trial Courthouse (Associate Architect)........... ............. 26
CGL CompaniesNew Model Prison for Mexico’s Federal Penitentiary System..................................... ............................................... ............ 20
DesignGroup Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse (Architect of Record)................. ..................................................... ...................... 28
Dewberry Architects Inc. Chatham County Trial Courthouse (Design Architect/Architect of Record)............................. ................................................................ 26
Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse (Architect)............................. ... 36
DLr GroupGeorge C. Young U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building ........................ 30
Superior Court of California, County of Kings, Hanford Courthouse .............................................................................. 38
Ehrlich ArchitectsJohn M. Roll U.S. Courthouse ............................................................... 32
heery InternationalLake County Judicial Center Expansion ................................................. 34
hDr Architecture Wake County Detention Center, Phase 2 Expansion (Associate Architect) ............................................................................. 22
hMC Architects San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility (Associate Architect) ............................................................................. 10
index oF aRChiteCtS
JFR1
3
52
hOKRichard E. Arnason Justice Center ...........................................................6
KMD Architects San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility (Architect/Architect of Record) ............................................................... 10
Koetter Kim & Assoc. Inc. Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse (Associate Architect) ................. 36
Little Diversified Architectural Consulting Wake County Detention Center, Phase 2 Expansion (Architect/Prime Architect of Record) ..................................................... 22
NBBJU.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles (Design Competition) ............................. 42
NOrr Limited Architects and EngineersWaterloo Region Courthouse ................................................................. 14
Parkin Architects LimitedRankin Inlet Healing Facility, Nunavut Territory ........................................2
PGAV ArchitectsJohnson County Sheriff’s Criminalistics Laboratory ............................... 46
ricciGreene Associates Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse (Courts Architect) .............. 28
rossDrulisCusenbery ArchitectureYuba City Courthouse ........................................................................... 40
Stantec Architecture Ltd.Toronto Police Service 14 Division ........................................................ 48
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
top related